Tolulope Emmanuel Oyeyemi -VS- Guardian Global Resources

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE E. A. OJI, PhD

DATE: THURSDAY 24^TH MAY 2018 SUIT NO. NICN/LA/372/2017

BETWEEN:

TOLULOPE EMMANUEL OYEYEMI – CLAIMANT

AND

GUARDIAN GLOBAL RESOURCES NIGERIA LIMITED – DEFENDANT

Representation:

Marcus Eyarhono appears for the Claimant.

Olugbenga Akinlabi, with Onajite Mukperuo appears for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims:

On 4^th August 2017, the claimant commenced this suit via the General Form of Complaint and statement of facts (accompanied by list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents) and claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:

A DECLARATION that the unilateral cut of the Claimant’s salaries and pensions and non-payment of parts of the Claimant’s pensions, by the Defendant, is unjust, oppressive, repressive, exploitative, unlawful, illegal and also constitutes an unfair labour practice and a flagrant breach of the contract of employment between the parties.
A DECLARATION that the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant his outstanding salaries and pensions, and damages for the hardship suffered by the Claimant, the violation of his labour rights and the unfair labour practice meted on him.
The sum of N2,126,643.88 (Two Million, One Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Three Naira, Eighty Eight Kobo) being the outstanding salaries and pensions due to the Claimant from the Defendant.
The sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as the cost of this action.
One year salaries as damages for the hardship suffered by the Claimant on account of the unilateral cut of his salaries, the violation of his labour rights and the unfair labour practice meted on him by the Defendant.
Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 21 per annum beginning from the date given by the Court for payment thereof until the sum is fully and finally liquidated.
And any other or further relief(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to grant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Case of the Claimant:

Hearing on the case commenced on 11^th January 2018 when the Claimant opend his case, testified as CW1. He adopted his written statement on oath dated 4^th August 2017 as his evidence in chief and tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were not objected to and admitted as exhibits C1 to C8.

The case of the Claimant is that he was employed by the Defendant on the 14^th of July 2014 as a Human Resources Manager. His employment was confirmed vide a letter dated 18^th November 2014 whereupon his salary was increased by 10% thereby making his monthly salary to be N247,500.00 (Two Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira). In July, 2015 the Defendant unilaterally cut his salary and paid only a part of the salary, and stopped paying his pension. By a memo dated the 13th day of August, 2015 the Defendant informed him and other staff that all salaries will be cut by 50% starting from July, 2015. In January, 2016 the Defendant resumed payment of his pensions but paid only a part of it, and continued with the part payment till when he resigned from the Defendant. Claimant presented details of his outstanding salaries/pensions as follows:

PARTICULARS OF PART PAYMENTS OF SALARIES, NON AND PART PAYMENTS OF PENSIONS AND THE OUTSTANDING SUMS THEREOF

S/N	MONTH	PAYMENTS		OUTSTANDING
		SALARIES	PENSION	SALARIES	PENSION
1	July – 15	101,555.67	–	101,555.67	44,550.00
2	Aug -15	101,555.67	–	101,555.67	44,550.00
3	Sept – 15	101,555.67	–	101,555.67	44,550.00
4	Oct – 15	101,555.67	–	101,555.67	44,550.00
5	Nov – 15	101,555.67	–	101,555.67	44,550.00
6	Dec – 15	101,555.67	–	101,555.67	44,550.00
7	Jan – 16	101,555.67	22,750.00	101,555.67	22,750.00
8	Feb – 16	101,555.67	22,750.00	101,555.67	22,750.00
9	Mar -16	101,555.67	22,750.00	101,555.67	22,750.00
10	Apr – 16	101,555.67	22,750.00	101,555.67	22,750.00
11	May – 16	121,866.81	22,750.00	81,244.53	22,750.00
12	Jun – 16	121,866.81	22,750.00	81,244.53	22,750.00
13	July – 16	121,866.81	22,750.00	81,244.53	22,750.00
14	Aug – 16	121,866.81	22,750.00	81,244.53	22,750.00
15	Sept – 16	121,866.81	–	81,244.53	22,750.00
16	Oct – 16	121,866.81	–	81,244.53	44,550.00
17	Nov – 16	75,075.00	–	87,715.00	19,305.00
	Total	1,821,832.56	204,750.00	1,590,738.88	535,905.00

The Claimant added that the Defendant paid his salaries, and parts of his salaries, into his bank account and did not issue pay slips to him. The abrupt and unilateral cut of his salaries disrupted his financial plans and arrangements as he could no longer meet his financial obligations leading to confusion, trauma and frustration. He could not pay his rent and his landlady was very angry and displeased with him. As a result of the salary cut, his children were sent from school on two occasions, as he could not pay their school fees. His pregnant wife could also not attend the hospital for ante natal care as a result of which she had complications that caused her to be delivered through a surgical operation. He eventually had to resort to a loan with high interest rates from a micro finance bank to enable him meet some of his accumulated financial obligations.

By a letter dated the 14^th day of October, 2016 he resigned from the Defendant. In the resignation letter, he demanded payment of his outstanding salaries and pensions but the Defendant refused and/or neglected to accede to the demand.

By another memo dated the 31^st day of October, 2016 unilaterally issued to him and other staff by the Defendant, the Defendant stated that it would henceforth pay 70% of salaries. By a letter dated the 7^th day of November, 2016 he reminded the Defendant of his notice of resignation, and once again, demanded for payment of his outstanding salaries and pensions but the Defendant also failed and/or neglected to accede to the demand. He left the Defendant in November, 2016 on account of his resignation and the Defendant refused and/or neglected to pay him his outstanding salaries and pensions.

His Solicitor by a letter dated the 15^th day of June, 2017 and addressed to the Defendant, demanded payment of his outstanding entitlements but Defendant’s solicitor, replied by a letter dated the 19^th day of June, 2017 to say, among others, that all payments due to him had been paid by the Defendant, whereas his outstanding salaries and pensions due to him are N1,598,738.88 (One Million, Five Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand, Eighty Eight Kobo) and N535,905.00 (Five Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Five Naira) respectively and they remain unpaid till date.

Under Cross examination, Claimant stated that he used Leadway Pensions Co. while in the employment of the Defendant. He said that he sits at Management meetings once in a while but that he was a middle management staff which meant that major decisions were taken by the senior management team. He said he was aware of the economic hardship in the country between 2014 and 2015. He said he was not aware that the time the decision to reduce salary was made the company had to choose between retrenching staff and reducing salary. He said he did not see the constraints the company had and that at the time, the company was doing well and management had just returned from Abuja from a retreat where over N1.5M was spent. Claimant stated that upon leaving the company, only one staff had left and was not aware that the lady Nkiru had left. He stated that the company was established by a UK company but they pulled out at the time and that the problem of non-payment of salary started 4 months after the UK Company left. He said he resigned to join another company and that at that time they were owing 4 months of the half salary they were paying but they have paid it. He agreed that if half salary is paid, the pension should be based on the half salary.

Case of the Defendant:

The Defendant opened his case on the same 11^th January 2018. Mr. Ismaila Ohiega, an Accountant in Defendant, testified on behalf of the Defendant. He identified his statement on oath dated 30^th August 2017 and adopted it as his testimony. He tendered 3 documents which were admitted without objection and marked exhibits D1 to D3.

The case of the Defendant is that the Company was in financial difficulty due to economic meltdown in the country in 2015. The company was faced with two options of either embarking on a mass lay-off/downsizing of its employees, or all employees taking a salary cut or salary adjustment. After consulting with all employees, more employee-friendly option was adopted which was the option of salary adjustment.. The company thereafter communicated a 50% cut in salary to all employees through its memo dated 13^th August. 2015 and also stated that the pay cut is across board and will continue till the lot of the company changes for good; however, all outstanding balances will be paid/when the company is back in the right position, and charged all employees to redouble their effort towards work and generating business.”

The Defendant added that the Company stopped all Directors salaries and allowances. The Company’s Directors were using their personal funds to run the Company and pay employees’ salaries and the company on a monthly basis was taking loans from its banker to pay staff salaries. Defendant stated that the Claimant and all other employees of the Defendant willingly and voluntarily accepted the option of a 50% cut in salary and stayed in the employment of the Defendant without raising any objection being that the decision was in their best interest considering the financial distraught the company was and is still facing.

He stated that Defendant’s finance has not improved and that there is no evidence to show that the Claimant made any effort to market or improve the Defendant’s finance. Defendant issued another memo dated 31^st October, 2016. In the said Memo, the Company introduced a new salary regime and unequivocally informed all its employees including the Claimant of its inability to pay all 50% outstanding balance on all employees’ salary as a result of the general economic challenges the nation and the company was facing. The company made a loss in the sum of N5,586,232.00 (Five Million Five Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Two Naira Only).

The witness stated that the Claimant’s pension was paid and remitted to its Pension Fund Administrator but that the Claimant was expecting pension remittance on a full salary scale whereas there is no way the Defendant could make pension remittance on a full salary scale when what was applicable was the 50% salary cut and a new salary regime. Witness further states that the Claimant upon resignation from the Defendant, was immediately employed by another organisation called Critical Rescue International and the Defendant is still in the employment of this named organization till date. Defendant denies owing the Claimant or unilaterally cutting the salary of claimant and that the Claimant being the Head of Human Resources and Administrative Manager of the Company was automatically a member of the Defendant’s management. That the decision was voluntarily accepted by the Claimant who willingly stayed in the service of the Defendant hence he is not entitled to any declaration or relief from this Honourable Court.

Parties on 13^th March 2018 adopted their final written addresses.

Submissions on Behalf of Defendant:

The Defendant in its Final Written Address, raised the following issues for determination:

Whether the Claimant is entitled to any outstanding salaries and pensions the Defendant having validly reduced all employees’ salaries by virtue of Exhibit C3 and CS?
Whether the Defendant’s reduction of salaries of all its employees and management in view of economic recession and financial loss of the company constitute an unfair labour pr1ctice?
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N2,126,634.88 (Two Million One Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Four Naira Eighty Eight Kobo) or any sum whatsoever as alleged outstanding salaries and pension deductions?
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the cost of this litigation, one (1) year salary for alleged hardship, interest on the alleged judgment sum?

With respect to Issue 1, Defendant argued that as part of the employer’s managerial authority, an employer can make changes to an employee’s contract at any stage in the course of the employment. In support of this submission they referred to the case of Wronko v. Western Inventory Services [2008] ONCA (CanLII) where the Ontario Court of Appeal held that where an employer seeks to vary contractual terms the employee has the following three choices:

The employee may accept the variation and a new contract is formed;
The employee may reject the variation and sue for damages based on constructive dismissal if the employer proceeds with the change without the consent of the employee;

iii. The employee may reject the change and continue on working under the established terms of the original employment contract. In this case, the employer may:

Respond to the rejection by terminating the employee with reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice, according to the termination provision in the employee’s contract, ensuring that the provision does not fall below the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 or the common law reasonable notice period, if applicable. The employer may then offer re-employment on new terms, or;
Acquiesce to the employee’s position and allow the employee to continue to perform his or her job on the existing terms of the original contract.

Defendant notes that the Claimant in this case carried on in his employment after receiving the Defendant’s Memo dated 13^th August, 2015 as if nothing happened and continued to hunt for new employment while still in the Defendant’s employment. The Claimant’s deliberate silence amount to an acquiescence and having acquiescenced to the new policy of the cut in the salary and having benefited (as the other option is mass termination of employment) is estopped from laying claim to its right..

Defendants contend that when parties mutually agree on salary restructuring, both the employer and the employee are bound by the new salary rate and neither party is allowed to resort to the former rate when a new rate has been implemented – NEABIAI v. NUBIFIE (2006) 6 N.L.L.R (Pt15) 301 NIC, where the Court held:

The Court agrees with the 2nd respondent having accepted an increase in salary cannot revert to the old rate. The appellant have clearly shown in their memorandum that the commission is structured in relation to the salary e.g. lower salary and higher salary and lower commission. The position is reasonable and upheld

On issue 2, Defendant submits that Reducing salaries when the management of the company was taking loans to pay salaries in the midst of an economic recession and economic down turn cannot by any stretch of imagination constitute an unfair labour practice.

On issue 3, Defendant contends that Claimant without credible evidence claimed entitlement to the sum of N2,126,634.88 (Two Million One Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Four Naira, Eighty Eight Kobo) without furnishing the indices for the calculation of this sum, and that failure to prove this fact is detrimental to the case of the Defendant – Agbaruka v. FBN Ltd. (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1182) 465.

On issue 4, Defendant submits that an action for general damages is not available in an action relating to contracts of employment even when a breach of contract has been proved against the Defendant. That, in the case of ordinary master and servant, where there is breach of contract, the remedy of the parties is in damages. Such damages are calculated to cover the period of notice necessary to terminate the contract as stipulated in the contract of service together with other accrued entitlements, if any. He referred to the cases of: Western Nigeria Development Corporation v. Abimbola; (1966)1 All NLR 159 at 160·161; Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi, (1972)1 All NLR (pt.2) 870 at 875 Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd (1993)4 NWLR (Pt.289)512.

Defendant argues that since the Claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment on 14^th October, 2016, that there has not been any breach of contract on the part of the Defendant, therefore the Claimant is ‘not entitled to general damages or any form of damages.

Submissions by Claimant:

Claimant raised the following issues for determination:

Whether the cut of the Claimant’s salaries and pensions by the Defendant is unilateral, and in breach of the contract of employment between the parties.
Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant his unpaid pensions and the cut from his salaries and pensions.
Whether the Claimant is entitled to the other reliefs against the Defendant.

On issues 1 and 2, Claimant submits that the terms of agreement between him and Defendants in the terms of Exhibits “C 1” and “C 2” are binding on the parties, and that neither of the parties, can, without the consent of the other, resile from the Agreements.

Claimant notes that the Defendant did not adduce any evidence to show that the Claimant consented to the salary cut, particularly as required by the provisions of paragraph 25.2 of Exhibit “C 1” and the fact that Exhibit “C 3″was made on a date later than the date it was meant to take effect, constitutes a further proof that the Defendant unilaterally cut the Claimant’s salaries. Claimant further submits that, “party to an agreement is not at liberty to unilaterally vary the terms of the agreement, and any such attempt is illegal, null and void” – per the Court of Appeal, in the case of Unity Bank PLC v. Olatunji (2015) 5 N. W. L. R. PART 1452 page 201 at page 243 paragraph F – H.

Claimant points out that Exhibits D1 and D3 relied on by Defendant in support of its claim, that it has financial difficulties are for 2015, a period of over two years before this suit was instituted. They argue that by virtue of section 167(l) (d) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Court may presume that evidence which could be, and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the party who withholds it.

On Issue 3, Claimant submits that the fact that while the unilateral cut of the Claimant’s salary by the Defendant commenced in July, 2015, Exhibit “C 3”, which the Defendant seeks to rely on as the ground for the salary cut is dated the 13^th day of August, 2015 shows that the Defendant had already commenced cutting of the Claimant’s salaries before it made Exhibit “C 3” constitutes evidence that the Defendant was high-handed and oppressive, and that it treated the rights of the Claimant with disdain and contempt.

He argues that he had given evidence of the adverse effects of the abrupt and unilateral cut of his salaries by the Defendant.

Defendant’s Reply:

The Defendant argued that Claimant waived the requirement for his consent when his salary was increased without his consent sought. Defendant argues that “A man cannot at the same time obtain an advantage by maintaining a particular stand point and then seek to discard that same stand point whilst keeping the advantage.”- F. R. A Willlams v. Daily Times of Nig Ltd (1990) 1 SC 23.

COURT DECISION

I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, the written submissions and authorities cited in the final addresses. I also heard the evidence of the two witnesses called at the trial as well as watched their demeanour. In addition, I evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I set the following lone issue down for determination:

Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims?

Relief 1: The 1^st Relief of Claimant seeks a Declaration that the unilateral cut of the Claimant’s salaries and pensions and non-payment of parts of the Claimant’s pensions, by the Defendant, is unjust, oppressive, repressive, exploitative, unlawful, and illegal and constitutes an unfair labour practice and a flagrant breach of the contract of employment between the parties.

In proof of this Relief, Claimant put in evidence his letter of employment (Exhibit C1) showing his salary. He also referred to Clause 25.2 of Exhibit “C 1” which provides, as follows:

No variation, modification or waiver or any provisions of this agreement, or consent to any departure there from, shall in any way be of any force or effect unless confirmed in writing and signed by both parties and then such variation, modification, waiver or consent shall be effective only in this specific instance and for the purpose and to the extent for which it is made or given.

Claimant relying on above clause argues that the cut in salary was unilateral and without consent and therefore he is entitled to benefit of his contract.

The Defendant relying on its memo of 13^th August 2015 (Exhibit C3) argues that the Claimant was informed along with other staffs and he did not enter any objection. They argue that when Claimant’s was confirmed vide Exhibit C2, he did not contest it even though he had not given any documentary consent, and that by so doing, he had waived the consent required under clause 25.2 of C1.

Contracts between parties are made to be kept and when one party deviate from the terms of such contract, such a party is in breach. The Clause requiring consent for any form of variation is clear, and Defendant having varied the said contract with respect of the Claimant’s salary, has breached the said contract. There is no evidence of written consent of the variation as required by the contract of employment. The argument that by accepting increase in salary without a written consent implies Claimant has waived that condition cannot hold. Increase in salary as evidenced in Exhibit C2 is a natural expectation in any job progression.

However, there is also no evidence of dissent on being notified of a salary cut by the Claimant. Just as it is not a logical expectation that upon an increase in salary, the employee is to consent in writing, as it is taken as part of job progression; in the same vein, it is a logical expectation that Claimant whose salary is cut and who opposes it as being contrary to contract, should enter a protest at the earliest opportunity. For the Claimant to notice a breach in his contract of employment, and continued as if nothing happened to come back 15 months later to complain, shows that Claimant slept on his right and thereby acquiesced to the breach and that the demand/protest is an after-thought.

It is to be noted that the memo of 13^th August 2015 (C3) repeated in several parts of the letter, the reasons for the cut in salary and indicated in its paragraph 4 that:

Please note that the pay cut is across board and will continue till the lot of the company changes for good; however, all outstanding balances will be paid if/when the company is back in the right position.

The memo was clear that Defendant was about to breach/or in breach of the contract of employment it has with its staff including the Claimant. It was a point of decision making for any staff with that information. The implication would be that any staff that stayed with the hope that the lot of the company would improve, was taking a chance with the company, and in a suit for the balance of the salary would need to establish that the lot of the Company had improved. The Claimant has not led evidence to show that the finances of the company improved within the period. What is in evidence is Defendant’s evidence of an Overdraft taken in 2015 and its Audited Account for 2015. These rather buttress Defendant’s case. The Claimant had in evidence in a bid to show that Defendant was not in a bad financial state testified that:

I am aware of the economic hardship in the country between 2014 and 2015. I did not see the constraints the company had. At the time we got that memo, the company was doing well and the Management had just returned from Abuja from a retreat where over N1.5M was spent.

This without more does not prove that the company had recovered from whatever financial state it alleged it had at the material time to justify the Reliefs sought in this suit. Claimant also stated that:

The Company was established by a UK Company. The problem of non- payment of salary started about 4 months after the UK Company left in April 2015.

I agree with the proposition in the case of Wronko v. Western Inventory Services (supra) that the following choices were left for the Claimant when his contract was varied without consent:

i)The Claimant could accept the variation, on the conditions stated in the varying document;
ii)The Claimant could reject the variation and sue for damages on constructive dismissal;

iii) The Claimant could express his rejection, and continue to work; in which case the defendant will know his position and decide to either continue on the original term or to utilise their right of termination, in the terms provided by the contract.

A breach of condition, which would discharge a party if at once treated by him as a discharge, will not have this effect if he goes on with the contract instead of repudiating it, and takes a benefit under it.

The relationship between a master and servant or an employer and his employee is a contractual one and it is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract between them – NEPA v. Adesaaji (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt. 797) 587) CA. Our l aws recognise that where a party, either by act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, either he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing – Section 169 of the Evidence Act 2011. The Supreme Court in the case of Joe Iga & Ors v. Ezekiel Amakiri & Ors (1976)11 SC 1, that:

…again if a man either in express terms or by conduct, makes representation to another of the existence of a state of facts which he intends to be acted upon in a certain way, in the belief of the existence of such a state of facts, to the damage of him who so believes and acts, the first is estopped from denying the existence of such a state of facts. Thirdly, if a man whatever his real meaning may be, so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take his conduct to mean a certain representation of facts and that it was a true representation, and that the latter was intended to act upon it in a particular way, and he with such belief does act in that way to his damage, the first is estopped from denying the facts as represented.

See also the case of Onomade v. ACB (1997) 1 SCANJ65 @83. Also, in Alhaji A. Olalekan v. Wema Bank (2006] 13 NWLR (Pt.998) 617 the Supreme Court that:

I agree entirely with this view of the learned trial Judge that paragraph 16 and other paragraphs (underlining is for emphasis) i.e the Statement of Defence sufficiently pleaded facts which constitute the plea of estoppel. The finding by the learned trial Judge that the Plaintiff was aware of the de-fixing of the N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) fixed deposit and transfer of the same to the Account of Alsod Nigeria Limited is tantamount to a finding that he authorised the transfer. And having regard to the fact that he even drew from the Account through Exhibit J shortly thereafter, the principle of estoppel should be involved to prevent him from claiming the same N2,000,000.00 which he has utilized.

This Court in the case of Victor Browne v. Dana Airlines Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/245/2012 delivered on 2015-02-12, gave a decision indicating the need for a party in a contract of employment to act promptly in situation of material change in the contract. Justice JD Peters held that:

The probationary employment of the Claimant was to lapse after 6 months of commencement. The Defendant was at liberty to either confirm or terminate the appointment within that period or at best shortly after the expiration of that period. Claimant’s appointment could have been terminated within a week or two or even a month after the expiration of the period of probation. If that had been done he certainly would have left the employment of the Defendant perhaps without grudges or animosity. Rather the Defendant kept him on for the first, second and third month after the period of probation. Claimant kept working for the Defendant during this period as a staff of the Defendant and was paid salaries as usual for the services he rendered. By this conduct of the Defendant, the Claimant was given an impression that all was well; that he was a full and confirmed staff of the Defendant. I dare say that this Court will not close its eyes to the conduct of the Defendant which gave the Claimant the impression that though he has not received a letter of confirmation of employment, his employment was however as good as having been confirmed. On examination of the facts and circumstances of this case I find that grounds exist for holding that by its conduct, the Defendant must be deemed to have confirmed the appointment of the Claimant and that as at 28/3/09 when Claimant’s employment was terminated Claimant was a confirmed staff of the Defendant.

Therefore, whereas I would have found that the cut in Claimant’s salary and pensions and their non-payment would be a breach of the contract of employment between the parties for being unilateral; however, the behaviour of the Claimant in the aftermath of the breach (salary cut) was such that the employee would be deemed to have accepted the change and the conditions under which it was made.

In the case of Nwobosi v. ACB, (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt.404) 658, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the general law of contract regulates the relationship of master and servant. In an opinion expressed by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, of February 25^th 2014, in the case of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., Cons., C.A. No. 8321-VCG (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2014), the Court described elements that can lead to acquiesce to include:

the plaintiff remained silent;
with knowledge of her rights;
and with knowledge or expectation that the defendant would likely rely on her silence;
the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s silence, and
the defendant in fact relied to her detriment on the plaintiff’s silence.

I am satisfied on the evidence that any breach of the contract was waived or alternatively acquiesced to by Claimant by reason of his conduct after the cut in salary. It is trite that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent, and this requires no further legal clarification. By the above reasoning and findings, I hold that the Claimant is not entitled to his Relief 1.

Reliefs 2 – 7 are dependent on the finding on Relief 1. Having found that the Claimant is not entitled to Relief 1, Reliefs 2-7 dissipates and do not accrue to the Claimant. I hold that the Claimant is not entitled to the Reliefs sought. The Claimant’s case is hereby dismissed.

Judgement is entered accordingly.

…………………………………….

Hon. Justice Elizabeth A. Oji PhD